1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to a holder assembly for the attachment, use, transport and deployment of containers.
2. Prior Art
This invention generally relates to the holder of containers for easy access, use, transport and deployment. It is described and illustrated in sundry uses. The choice of embodiment is dictated by the intended use. Although one example embodiment described herein shows use by scuba divers for the deployment of an additional, alternate or reserve gas supply, a multitude of alternative uses in sports, recreation and industry are also indicated. The invention incorporates several general aspects: a holder for a container, fasteners for attaching the holder to the user or a host device, and if required by the intended use, a release mechanism for partial or complete removal of the assembly from the user or host device.
One embodiment of the invention is for use as a safety device for an underwater scuba diver. Single regulators have evolved into “octopus” systems, with two second stage regulators for breathing that are connected to a single first stage which is attached to the compressed air supply. This allows two safety backup scenarios. Underwater divers are trained to dive in groups of two or more “buddies”, each diver becoming the backup or support system for the other. If a diver's own second stage fails, he may switch to his own auxiliary “octo” second stage. Or if a second (“distressed”) diver's gas supply fails, he may breath from the first (“safe”) diver's gas container, in an emergency. Although an improvement in diver safety, this arrangement still requires a distressed diver to be within visual and swimming distance of his buddy. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for buddies to stray farther apart than they are able to swim with a single breath. There is also a 50/50 chance that gas failure will occur after exhalation, before his next breath, severely limiting his ability to access a secondary source of gas.
The situation is further complicated by current designs which tend to place the distressed diver to the side or rear of the safe diver supplying the gas. This makes visual communication between the two divers difficult, if not impossible, at the very moment communication is needed the most. If the distressed diver goes into a state of panic, the lives of both divers may be endangered. Indeed, statistics demonstrate an alarming number of double drowning, precipitated by the distressed diver causing the additional death of the safe diver.
Most importantly, this equipment/system design is not fully redundant and applies only to second stage failure. If the failure is first stage, or an exhausted the gas supply, the “octopus” arrangement is of no use.
Background of Container Holder
U.S. Pat. No. 4,949,889 and US Pat No US2006/0175492 both show the common methods of allowing a gas container system to be used by a diver. Each shows a way of attaching the gas container, not directly to the diver, but to the diver's primary gas container. This design, or some variation of it, is one method used by divers who carry a redundant gas supply. Unfortunately, these designs have serious deficiencies that impede industry wide adoption of this important safety device, especially by those divers who are the least skilled, experienced and trained: new, novice, or “occasional” divers.
The design deficiencies of the systems shown are extensive. First, the entire weight of the system is placed on the back, adding to the considerable weight already carried there. Because it is part of the main container assembly, the added weight is much more difficult to don and remove. Alternatively, if attached to the side, (instead of on top of the main container), the distribution of weight is off-axis and similarly, off-balance/equilibrium on every axis. The off-axis weight tends to roll the diver on his side while diving. This requires the diver to change the distribution of weight on his weight system to compensate. If the safe diver deploys his gas container to a distressed diver, the faulty weight distribution remains. Similarly this design solution creates uneven drag in the water. Divers are required to compensate differently for all unequal conditions (balance, trim, drag) with or without the system attached. Failure to compensate contributes to diver fatigue and discomfort and concurrently decreases in diver safety and pleasure.
With current systems, diver discomfort begins well before the dive. Walking on land, in a rocking boat, or wading through waves while balancing the substantial additional, uneven weight on the back, creates safety hazards and pre dive fatigue. The same hazards await the fatigued diver upon his return at the end of the dive.
The design deficiencies of these patents extend throughout the dive. With a gas container attached to the main container, a longer second stage hose is required to reach around all the other gear to the diver's mouth. It presents a third regulator that can easily be confused with the non functioning “octo” that may be attached to an empty main gas container. When shared by a safe diver, the distressed diver is typically forced to the side or behind the safe diver to gain sufficient hose length. In most cases, visual communication essential to calmness and reassurance between divers is difficult or impossible. If the distressed diver demands a swift, unsafe ascent there is no way for the safe diver to separate himself. His only choice is either to terminate the distressed diver's access to his gas supply, or attempt an unsafe rapid ascent with the distressed diver. Either choice can be fatal to either diver, or both. No diver should be faced with that byproduct of deficient equipment/system design.
Some alternations have been made to these two basic designs. See U.S. Pat. No. 6,367,753; U.S. Pat. No. 7,344,11; U.S. Pat. No. 5,579,967; US 2006/0175492 A1; U.S. Pat. No. 5,271,387; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,949,889 wherein the gas container may be removed, albeit with considerable difficulty. Again, because the attachment location is on the main tank, on the back and out of sight of the diver, it is very difficult to reach by the diver encumbered by his equipment. This is highly problematic in an emergency situation. Even if eventually removed, it may not be in time. The difference between life and death can be as short as a single second. Even with successful extraction, diver imbalance/faulty trim still occurs as a result of the alternation and redistribution of weight. The claims are limited to a quick release of a secondary air supply that is attached to the “scuba main air supply tank”. This location is precisely from where the instant embodiment removes the secondary air supply, for all the safety reasons identified.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,577 shows an alternative solution, wherein a gas container is permanently attached to the main container, but with an arrangement that makes the gas supply fully redundant (separate first and second stage regulators) for each container. While this solves design goals a) and b), it does not address the remaining c) through h). The suggested cost savings of the single air-fill feature, are negligible, compared the cost of a life ended by failure to address design issues c) through h). Neither can this design allow for an easy onsite change of gas container size or incorporation of a second redundant gas system. The claims for this patent make no reference to the holder or the method of holding the system described to the main tank.
Not unlike the front mounted system above, U.S. Pat. No. 2,844,145 shows an early design for a primary scuba system. Like a reverse tortoise shell, the housing contains a “U” shaped container (a very difficult shape to manufacture if it is to hold gas with several thousand pounds of internal pressure), with a regulator in the middle, to be carried on the front torso. While the diving apparatus itself is unique, the holder appears to be no more that a donut shaped shell without any description as to exactly how the device is attached to the body. All three claims for this patent are limited to the “breathing apparatus” and not to any method of holding, attaching, transporting or deploying the apparatus.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,660 “Apparatus for Supplying Respiratory Gas to a Parachute Jumper” shows an alternative location for a diver gas container. Here the gas supply is attached to the waist on one side, or possibly lower, strapped to the thigh. While this may be suitable for a parachutist who is in the full upright vertical position, for the brief period of time he is using the device, a diver is in the water, with the device attached ready for use throughout the entire lengthy dive period which may be an hour or more. Furthermore, the diver must be able to bend at the waste, and not have additional drag or weight on one side, creating an imbalance that is fatiguing or seriously interferes with his leg kicking, the primary source of diver propulsion. The claims referencing the holder are limited to use by a parachute jumper.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 2,366,455 presents a container attachment for pilots who must carry a floatation device, while flying, yet have it available upon a parachute landing in water. While this device arrangement shows two possible arrangements, one attached at the waist with a second strap around the leg above the knee, and the second, a two point attachment with the canister hanging at the mid-thigh, neither of these devices is adaptable for use underwater, containing a breathing apparatus, in the horizontal or inverted (head down) vertical position, for an hour or more, with diver legs kicking for propulsion. The two point attachment would have the device skewering its position uncontrollably. This design is suitable for the intended use, a few minutes in the air, in a vertical position, before landing on ground or water, where it is meant to be quickly removed. The claims of this patent properly limit the patent to this device being used “in combination with an airplane”
U.S. Pat. No. 7,083,361 demonstrates a new design for an “aquatic breathing apparatus comprising a buoyancy vest” designed to be a primary scuba system with fully integrated buoyancy control system, not a holder for a fully redundant secondary gas supply for the safe diver, that is fully deployable to a distressed diver in an emergency situation. In deed, one of the primary design flaws of this system, is the extreme difficulty of using a safety/gas container system with this design. The design as shown, has the single primary container located on the lower end of the buoyancy device, at waist level. It is a fully integrated system, with buoyancy control vest and gas container combined into a single, inseparable unit. The intended use of this design is as a primary gas system for scuba divers. As such it is extremely limiting. The size of the container utilized is approximately ⅙th of the size customarily worn by scuba divers. Therefore the length of stay underwater and the depth to which the diver may descend, is severely restricted. Simultaneous use by two divers in an emergency is not possible. A redundant or backup gas supply for this primary system would necessarily be located on the back of the diver—precisely from where the instant embodiments are intended to remove it, because of the inaccessibility and reduced safety inherent in that configuration. Designed to provide “an aquatic breathing experience to a customer”, its claim is not to be a deployable holder, wherein one embodiment includes the holding of a container of redundant gas supply for divers who already carry a primary source of gas and buoyancy control system. Beyond its claims as an aquatic breathing apparatus, it could serve no other purpose, such as the needs of hikers—backpackers or cyclists, who carry a container of fluids.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,423,586; U.S. Pat. No. 4,804,218; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,556,245, all show designs for carrying scuba containers on land, to and from a dive site. They show the greater ease of carrying these containers in a horizontal position, using a method that distributes the weight horizontally. None of these designs are intended for underwater use. They claim beneficial use for carrying on land full size scuba containers; typically 80 cu.ft. or larger, weighing 35 lbs or more. Spreading the distribution of their full weight over a wider, balance area, facilitates carrying them a considerable distance to a dive site or boat. They also show the method of use is limited to the user carrying the device in hand through the use of a handle, as opposed to attaching the device to the user, eliminating the handle and freeing the hands for other purposes.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,723,801 shows a small simple device that may be attached to a baby bottle, to allow an infant greater ease in holding his/her own bottle while drinking. While this design does show an alternative method of holding a container, the design claim is limited to a “handle that can be gripped by a baby and also be used as a teething member”.
Akona is a company that sells scuba equipment and accessories. They sell a simple bag in various sizes. It is a sleeve-like device, into which a gas container of a standard size may be slipped. Velcroz straps criss-crossing over the top to keep the container inside the bag. From the bag are straps to allow it to attach and hang from the diver's side. While this may allow transference of the container to another diver, it still creates an asymmetrical problem with balance, trim and weight. Not attached to the diver by at least three points, it wags uncontrollably, depending upon the position of the diver relative to gravity. It also fails to correct the problems introduced by a third regulator and hose coming from the diver's side. Nor does is provide, as a part of the system any solution for controlling, attaching or safely placing the regulator and its hose assembly, out of the way, but readily accessible to the diver. A second gas container system cannot be attached to the first, for an additional safety margin and the container components (regulator, on/off valve, pressure gauge) cannot be instantly checked, without temporarily detaching and/or moving the system to a new visible location, often requiring use of both hands.
Zeagle is a company that sells scuba equipment and accessories. They sell the “Zeagle Air Bottle System” which is their standard gas container/valve/internal first stage and standard second stage “system” that is usable in any container size configuration. As designed and advertised the “Mesh Deploy Bag” is for the “6 cu. ft only” configuration. The design is a bag, with drawstring enclosure at one end to keep the container within. It is designed for a single container size. It has a single elastic band to contain the hose, but no attachment for the regulator end to the bag system. Through variously located holes, the assembly may be placed “in many positions with plastic ties or barrel screws” the diver might discover some way of attaching the container to his main container or buoyancy control assembly. Container deployment leaves the whole bag attached to the primary diver. It cannot be readily used by the distressed diver. As with the Akona gas bottle bag, the Zeagle container components (regulator, on/off valve, pressure gauge) cannot be instantly checked without temporarily detaching or moving the system to a new visible location, often requiring use of both hands.
This system is not a definitively designed singular system for the attachment, operation and deployment of gas cylinders, with regulators as a fully redundant, detachable system. It is an accessory, with a mired of unfinished options, requiring diver participation in the process of determining how, and by what additional means of pieces or parts (to be provided by the diver himself), the diver might discover a usable configuration.